The AP photo by Adam Butler records an 83-year-old Iraqi preparing to vote in London. The AP reports that "[t]his is the first time she has participated in an Iraqi election" (see other AP report). The faces and smiles tell the story of freedom. All eyes are on the Iraqi elections this weekend. We pray that God will protect the brave who dare to go and vote for a decent and dignified future for themselves and their families (see London Timesonline report, "Voting fever takes hold of a people finally free to choose"). Thanks to President Bush and our military for making this future possible. Since the picture speaks for itself, no further commentary is needed today.

John Schultz (Catholic Light) passes along an email from Battalion Chaplain Lyle Shackelford delivering the voting machines and the ballots to villages and cities throughout Iraq, who asks for prayers on behalf of all who read:

. . . There is unlimited potential for God's presence in this process but if we do not pray, then our enemy will prevail (See Ephesians 6:10-17). A prayer vigil prior to the end of the month may be an innovative opportunity for those within your sphere of influence to pray. This is a political battle that needs spiritual intervention. A powerful story about God's intervention in the lives of David's mighty men is recorded in 2 Samuel 23:8-33. David and his warriors were victorious because of God's intervention. We want to overcome those who would stand in the way of freedom. David's mighty men triumphed over incredible odds and stood their ground and were victorious over the enemies of Israel. (Iraqi insurgents' vs God's praying people). They don't stand a chance.

I will pray with my soldiers before they leave on their convoys and move outside our installation gates here at Tallil. My soldiers are at the nerve center of the logistic operation to deliver the voting machines and election ballots. They will be driving to and entering the arena of the enemy.

This is not a game for them. It is an historic mission that is extremely dangerous. No voting machines or ballots, No elections. Your prayer support and God's intervention are needed to give democracy a chance in this war torn country. Thank you for your prayer support for me and my family. Stand firm in your battles.

Lane Core Jr. (Blog from the Core explains why our future hangs in the balance on January 30-31, 2005:

If we do not succesfully plant the seeds of democratic government in the Middle East — beginning with Iraq, and expanding thence over the years & decades & generations -- our children and grandchildren will be condemned to live in a world where freedom of religion and conscience -- where the rule of law and respect for individual dignity -- won't even be memories because they will have been obliterated.

The power of the United States of America — military, financial, diplomatic, and cultural — to project its force around the world, to remove despotic regimes and enforce the beginnings of freedom amongst peoples who have never known it, or have no living memory of it, is what stands between us and the Dark Ages of the Future.

That, and the courage of Iraqi citizens — those who stand for office, and those who vote. Please keep them, and our soldiers in Iraq, in your prayers these days.

For all the Bush haters out there, for all the pundits who think it is clever to spell Republican with a triple "k", I have a challenge for all of you. For one day, less probably by the time you hear of this, devote some of that energy to wishing success to the people of Iraq in this election. Forget for one day your raging anger and calls for us to abandon Iraq. It’s not going to happen, and for this single day we could use your support. You can resume your attacks on the Administration on Monday - because you live in a free land.

All my life like all Iraqis, I was not in control of my life. I started looking to myself as a humanist many years ago. Maybe it's because I lost belief in my government and even sometimes in my country and my people. My country was just a stupid large piece of dirt that meant nothing and offered nothing to me but suffering and humiliation. . . .

Now, and thanks to other humans, not from my area, religion and who don't even speak my language, I and all Iraqis have the real chance to make the change. Now I OWN my home and I can decide who's going to run things in it and how and I won't waste that chance. Tomorrow as I cast my vote, I'll regain my home. I'll regain my humanity and my dignity, as I stand and fulfill part of my responsibilities to this part of the large brotherhood of humanity. Tomorrow I'll say I'M IRAQI AND I'M PROUD, as being Iraqi this time bears a different meaning in my mind. It's being an active and good part of humanity. Tomorrow I and the Iraqis that are going to vote will rule, not the politicians we're going to vote for, as it's our decision and they'll work for us this time and if we don't like them we'll kick them out! Tomorrow my heart will race my hand to the box. Tomorrow I'll race even the sun to the voting centre, my Ka'aba and my Mecca. I'm so excited and so happy that I can't even feel the fear I though I would have at this time. I can't wait until tomorrow.

Jeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine has a roundup of quotes from Iraqi bloggers' as they anticipate the vote. "They all should be an inspiration -- and perhaps a shame -- to those of us who have become blase about democracy and freedom, who growl over our choices and don't even bother showing up at the polls. Democracy is fragile and precious; we forget that. These people don't." Here's a Iraqi bloggers covering the election, also courtesy of Jeff.

Radioblogger has a photo-blog of proud Iraqis voting in El Toro, California. Lots of smiling faces and an interesting story -- two Iraqis men "came to vote today, with their families, and recognized each other. They started talking and realized that they hadn't seen each other in fifty years. They were about ten years old in Iraq the last time they saw each other." What a reunion!

How do you begin to contain the emotion of contributing to freedom for the very first time in over 50 years. And for many - the first time ever in their life?" -- Kevin McCullough captures the emotions of many Iraqis with another series of photos.

Michelle Malkin shares a relevant question from a reader: "Why don't we see the human shields at the polls in Iraq? They were willing to protect Iraq from bombs before the war started. Why aren't they protecting Iraq now?"

Atheer Almudhafer, from Falls Church, Va., gives the Iraqi sign of victory after casting his absentee ballot at the New Carrollton, Md., voting station, Jan. 28, 2005. His finger is marked with indelible blue ink, intended to prevent double voting. "I give the sign of peace and voting. Together it is victory." [Defense LINK]

This election, which many hope will spark a democratic revolution for the Middle East, falls on the same day -- January 30 -- as the event which set in motion the modern West's first democratic revolution more than 365 years ago. It was on that day in 1649 that King Charles I of England was beheaded after his formal trial for treason and tyranny, an epoch-shattering event that destroyed the notion of divine right of kings forever, and gave birth to the principle that reverberates down to today, from President Bush's inaugural address last week to the Iraqi election this Sunday: that all political authority requires the consent of the people. Although few like to admit it now, it was Charles's execution, along with the civil war that preceded it and the political turmoil that followed, that established our modern notions of democracy, liberty, and freedom of speech. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he was thinking primarily of the legacy of the English civil war.

Thousands of people are now walking a 13-mile stretch between Abu Ghraib and Gazaliyah to cast votes in the elections, military sources tell Fox News. The mass march has been caught by unmanned drones, and Fox says they will soon have pictures of the subtle demonstration of the Iraqi desire for liberty.

More as it develops. Fox also reports long lines in most polling stations, with some even calling for more ballot materials as they run out of ballots faster than they anticipated.

Arthur Chrenkoff has more reactions of Iraqi voters (E-Day & E-Day, Part II, including this from sometime Chrenkof correspondent:

Haider Ajina:
"I just called my father in Baghdad to see if he and the rest of my Iraqi family over there have voted yet. He said we were all just heading out the door, but we will wait and talk to you (chuckling). I heard a strength and joy in his voice and could hear the rest of my relatives in the back ground. It sounded like a family reunion. My 84 year old Iraqi Grandmother will be voting for the first time in her life. My father (a naturalized U.S. Citizen) said we are all getting ready to go vote in a school near by. This school was just being built when I left Iraq in the late 70's. I know where it is and I can picture my father, uncles aunties and cousins along with the rest of the family walking through my old neighborhood to that school and vote. My father said 'For the first time in my life I voted in the U.S. and now I can vote in Iraq. We want our voices to count, we want to decide our future and we want the world to know we have a voice in our future and in our government, this will give the Iraqi government true legitimacy, just like in America'.

"I can now dream of the day when I can take my family to meet my extended family and the places were I played and grew up. They will also see what our men and women in our military fought for.

"To all the men and women who have served and serving in Iraq, to all the families of those who have paid the ultimate price to all those who have suffered during their service in Iraq, my family’s and my deepest thanks, gratitude and pride both from the U.S. and Iraq for all the sacrifices, endurance and service for our great country and Iraq and the Iraqis. God bless all of you and keep you safe."

(2005-01-30) -- News reports of terrorist bombings in Iraq were marred Sunday by shocking graphic images of Iraqi "insurgents" voting by the millions in their first free democratic election.

Despite reporters' hopes that a well-orchestrated barrage of mortar attacks and suicide bombings would put down the so-called 'freedom insurgency', hastily-formed battalions of rebels swarmed polling places to cast their ballots -- shattering the status quo and striking fear into the hearts of the leaders of the existing terror regime.

Hopes for a return to the stability of tyranny waned as rank upon rank of Iraqi men and women filed out of precinct stations, each armed with the distinctive mark of the new freedom guerrillas -- an ink-stained index finger, which one former Ba'athist called "the evidence of their betrayal of 50 years of Iraqi tradition."

Journalists struggled to put a positive spin on the day's events, but the video images of tyranny's traitors choosing a future of freedom overwhelmed the official story of bloodshed and mayhem.

This morning, I asked myself whether I would go to vote if I thought I could be bombed at the polling place or shot because of my blue finger. I don't think I'd have that courage. Most Americans would not (hell, most of us don't vote even in the lap of safety). Remember that every single Iraqi who came to vote today is a victory for democracy.

The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:< p>"You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's".

This was a good sign indeed and the young officer's statement was met by applause from the people on the street. The streets were completely empty except for the Iraqi and the coalition forces ' patrols, and of course kids seizing the chance to play soccer! . . .

I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.

I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn".

Just as depressing as the violence in Iraq is the indifference to it abroad. Americans and Europeans who have never lifted a finger to defend their own right to vote seem not to care that Iraqis are dying for the right to choose their own leaders. . . .

The Bush administration has managed the nearly impossible: to turn democracy into a disreputable slogan.

Liberals can't bring themselves to support freedom in Iraq lest they seem to collude with neo-conservative bombast. Anti-war ideologues can't support the Iraqis because that would require admitting that positive outcomes can result from bad policies. And then there are the ideological fools in the Arab world, and even a few in the West, who think the 'insurgents' are fighting a just war against US imperialism. This makes you wonder when the left forgot the proper name for people who bomb polling stations, kill election workers and assassinate candidates - fascists.

The polls closed at 1700 (5PM) our time and 8AM CST but the initial reports are that 72% of the Iraqis voted. Folks we should be ashamed. We can’t get that many people to vote in the US and no one is trying to kill us.

So that's the roundup for the weekend . . . stay tuned to the various blogs mentioned above for the results and the aftermath, and please keep the people of Iraq, together with our troops, in your prayers.

Bashing George W. Bush has been the thinking person's sport for four years now. Foreign policy intellectuals play their own version of the game: bashing neoconservatives. This is Bush-bashing with a Ph.D. It has proven surprisingly popular, attracting onto the field not only liberals but also some traditional conservatives and many conspiracy theorists, for whom the neocons are the new Trilateral Commission. Sadly, a lot of this commentary is plagued by the same vices as Bush-bashing in general: chronic exaggeration, fast-and-loose connection-drawing, and over-the-top hyperbole. Reading it is enough to turn you into a fervent anti-anti-neoconservative.

This is a pity, because with Bush's re-election "the neoconservative question" is ripe for debate, and this high-stakes debate should be as well-informed as possible.

Alexander criticizes those who attempt to trace the intellectual roots of today's neocons to the original neocons of the 1960's (by and large the staff of The Public Interest and Commentary), problematic because

"the first group called "neocon" wasn't especially homogeneous; the second group isn't much more so; and the two put together aren't at all . . . the neocons disagreed with each other almost as much as they agreed. They had in common a repulsion for the New Left. But to treat them as a tightly-knit "ism" is like treating "Protestants" that way just because they all left Catholicism for vaguely related reasons").

Even worse than the homogenizing of the first neocons, says Alexander, "is the joint homogenizing of both groups called neocon" into one ambiguous mass due to their support of the war in Iraq and the establishment of democracy in the Middle East. Readers of various political blogs (and Catholic bloggers on just war theory) will readily identify this "over-identification of doctrinal similarities":

Just quote someone labeled a neocon as saying something, then designate that something as part of neocon ideology, and finally suggest that all neocons, including those in office, devote themselves to advocating that something. The result is not just homogenization but hyperbole.

Gerard Alexander goes on to demonstrate the messy and misleading consequences of such thinking in recent discussion of "the neocons" and U.S. foreign policy. Of course, he is not without his own reservations about certain proposals of the neoconservatives, but as he says, "Americans need to decide what to make of neoconservative ideas. It might be possible to make a case effectively demolishing them. So far, that case hasn't been made."

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Excerpt from the confirmation hearings of soon-to-be Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice:

Rice: It wasn't just weapons of mass destruction. He was also a place--- his territory was a place where terrorists were welcomed, where he paid suicide bombers to bomb Israel, where he had used Scuds against Israel in the past.

And so we knew what his intentions were in the region; where he had attacked his neighbors before and, in fact, tried to annex Kuwait; where we had gone to war against him twice in the past. It was the total picture, Senator, not just weapons of mass destruction, that caused us to decide that, post-September 11th, it was finally time to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Boxer: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

According to blogger someguy, Boxer's "it was WMD, period" attempt at historical revision is easily dispatched by a check of the congressional record itself. The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 includes, in addition to the possession of WMD's, charges of "brutal repression of [Iraq's own] civilian population"; refusal to "release, repatriate or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained"; "continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States" -- including the attempted assassination of President Bush, Sr. and attacks on U.S. and Coalition forces enforcing the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council; the aid and harbor of international terrorist organizations, including members of Al Qaeda . . . et al. (Weapons of Mass Distraction January 19, 2005).

Saturday, January 15, 2005

What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True -- yes, accurate -- yes, but in context with the greater good taking place -- no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now. . . .

Thursday, January 13, 2005

It has been the fault of both pacifism and liberalism in the past that they have ignored the immense burden of inherited evil under which society and civilization labour and have planned an imaginary world for an impossible humanity. We must recognize that we are living in an imperfect world in which human and superhuman forces of evil are at work and so long as those forces affect the political behaviour of mankind there can be no hope of abiding peace.

Christopher Dawson, "The Catholic Attitude to War," 1937

* * *

Last year George Weigel wrote a brief article on just war theory ("Force of law, law of force", The Catholic Difference April 2003), in which he stated that:

The juxtaposition of "the force of law and the law of force," a trope that got established in the Catholic conversation months before armed force was used to enforce disarmament in Iraq, will likely be a prominent feature of the post-war Catholic debate. . . .

The "force of law/law of force" juxtaposition neatly divides the world into two camps. Those who wish to settle conflicts through diplomacy, political compromise, and the mechanisms of international law live on one side of this Great Divide; those who believe in using armed force are on the other. Given that dichotomy, the moral choice seems clear: the first camp.

The problem, which involves both content and context, is that the world doesn’t work the way the trope suggests. . . . Is the relationship between international law and armed force a zero-sum game, such that every use of armed force necessarily entails a loss for the "force of law"?

Fr. James Schall revisits this topic in "When War Must Be The Answer" (Policy Review No. 128., December 2004), in which he delivers a broadside to "war is not the answer" protestors in a substantial reflection on the justifiable use of armed force, just war theory, and the war on terrorism.

My recommmendation would to be read Schall's essay alongside just war scholar James Turner Johnson' latest piece in First Things: "Just War: As It Was and Is" (No. 149, January 2005), which unfortunately is not yet available online.

For the sake of a counter-argument, see this essay on just war theory by brother John Raymond of the The Community of The Monks of Adoration, recommended by Fr. Jim Tucker.

As an intellectual/academic exercise, compare Brother Raymond's presentation of just war theory and his predisposition towards pacifism with the critiques of Father Schall and James Turner Johnson.